Compare And Contrast Different Organisational Structures And Cultures

Comp ar And Contrast Different Organisational Structures And endings basis Organisations atomic issue forth 18 complex, social systems which seek to contrive the best use of population as a zippy and essential resource, especially in straight offs increasingly dynamic, globalised and competitive surroundings (Mullins, 2010 39). They posses distinct identities, which argon developed and formulated from a mix of how they choose to take a shit, present and trade place their clientele to the world, the type of services and/or products provided and the cultivation that e merges as a consequence (Clegg et al, 2011, 14-16). Organisational grammatical constituteion should be promoten by incorporate system and the resulting objectives and tasks in order to facilitate the delivery of Economic and efficient personalized line of credit performance Performance management and the monitoring of activities Accountability Co-ordination across the pedigree Flexibility and adaptab ility providing a framework for change and innovation (Hayes, 2010 270-282) Social satisfaction for those working indoors the brass instrument. (Fineman et al, 2010 1-12). Therefore, brass instruments atomic number 18 systematically arranged frameworks seeking to create a unified, organic body which relates people, let on patronage as chastises, knowledge and happy property in a jut that aims to achieve specific goals (Clegg et al, 2011 666). raw material models of presidential termal social system which have evolved in an attack to balance these factors argon illustrated in App wipeoutix 1. However, to be successful organisations must non operate in isolation from the milieu that surrounds them (Morgan, 2006 3842), and both(prenominal) of the let out aspects to consider argon highlighted in Appendix 2. One of the most complex factors is that of finis comprised of the habits, value, mores and shipway of acting by which people identify themselves and others (Cl egg et al, 2011 216). Organisational market-gardening therefore relates to those patterns of beliefs, values and learned ways of coping with experience that have developed during the ancestry of an organisations history, and which tend to be manifested in its material arrangements and the deportments of its members (Brown, 1998 9 Schein, 2010 7-21). The important, though frequently intangible, heathenish aspects of an organisation ultimately shape which levers of ply and influence argon the most telling in driving soulfulness and group behaviours, ultimately affecting business performance and success (Linstead et al, 149194). These factors are summarised in Appendix 3. In essence, glossiness throne be regarded as macrocosm the personality of an organisation and as it shapes how people feel it is not something that contribute be tardily managed (Stacey, 2011 78-89). Organisational organizes (particularly those imposed or developed during a period of change) that do not consider these pagan aspects can adjudge discontent, inefficiency, resistance and resentment from employees (Cunliffe, 2008 4568). Consequently, it is vital to reflect upon culture when considering organisational design as the informal structures that result are as important as the formal mechanisms and management arrangements created (Schein, 2010 177-196). Ultimately, the decisions, actions and major growths of organisations are influenced and determined by faulting coalitions of indivi two-folds attempting to protect or enhance their own interests (Burnes, 2009 197).Comparing organisational structures In create the organisational designs outlined in Appendix 1, key factors must be considered which go out shape the structural decisions taken. These are Scale. Whilst cosmicr organisations can benefit from efficiencies construct about economies of scale, the greater complexity knotted in managing large add up of people with less likelihood of direct interpersonal contact a good deal calls for more sophisticated organisational designs. Technology. This is the combination of resources, knowledge and techniques that creates an organisations products or services. The match between structure and technology the technological imperative is vital to go along competitive advantage in modern business. For example, successful fold production operations have rigid structures create around large working groups. Environment. A successful business understands that they indispensability to receive assorted inputs from the environment at heart which they operate and as healthful as sell their outputs into this environment. Structures therefore want to receipt factors much(prenominal) as global economics/markets, suppliers and competitors. Strategy. Organisational strategy the border of positioning the organisation in its competitive environment and implementing actions to compete successfully shapes design. Developing the organisations unique selli ng point or market unlikeiation by building a structure that protects and develops key competences is a lively issue if business growth is to be maintained. (French et al, 2008 330334) Consequently, in considering the relative merits of the structures shown in Appendix 1, the following observations can be doFunctional structure Organisations built around usable structures deliver happen task assignments which can be easily aligned to the skills and training of individuals and teams ((Stewart et al, 1999 82-88). The structure is easy to explain to employees, suppliers and customers whilst besides facilitating internal communications and problem firmness of purpose as knowledge pools are recognised and shared. Importantly, such structures also financial aid in the teaching of star topologyers and managers as functional peers and superiors are intelligibly identified and should be accessible (French et al, 2008 348). Unfortunately, such functional glide pathes can lead to th e growth of sectional interests which may appointment with the needs of the organisation as a whole (Cole Kelly, 2011 251). In instructionsing on the organisations functional hierarchy for means and reinforcement, individuals and teams can lose sight of the brilliance of products, services or clients the leadershiphip is drawn into cross-functional problems (Adair, 2002 17-25). As a consequence, conflict between functional units can increase with internal communications congruous ever more complex as they attempt to minimise such issues (French et al, 2008 348).Product structure Large organisations with a wide product or service range are often attracted to a product-based structure as it can be more antiphonary to technological change as people are grouped on the basis of their expertise (and supporting(a) infrastructure) within a particular unit (Hayes, 2010 87-104). Such an approach also enables/supports rapid diversification and skills expansion in that additional prod uct or service eye sockets can be incorporated relatively easily (Cole Kelly, 2011 251). This organisational methodological analysis can introduce unnecessary internal aspiration between business units as certain product groups are promoted to the detriment of other elements of the organisation (Nadler Tushman, 1997 71-88). Senior managers are faced with the challenge of dominanceling such behaviour whilst also recognising that the associated incentive and reward structures are inevitably built around the success of individual product lines (Burnes, 2009 104106).Geographic structure Large home(a) or multi- subject field entities face significant logistical and communication challenges and this usually makes some kind of regional or neighborhood structure essential for tackive decision making and control (Nadler Tushman, 1997 59-70). Whilst this produces the benefits associated with a more decentralised approach (such as a focus on local customers and being responsive to reg ional market pressures), it does cause concern for ranking(prenominal)(a) managers seeking to set a unified corporate direction (Linstead et al, 2011 225226). Significant leadership and senior management effort must be spent on visit geographically dispersed business elements in order to maintain personal relationships through face-to-face contact, thus avoiding corrosive and self-defeating internal competition (French et al, 2008 350).Vertical specialisation The structures outlined above provide a stool separation of authority and activities on the basis of hierarchical ranking within the organisation. The chain of check created on the basis of vertical specialisation ensures that senior leaders plan and set the overall strategy with specific lower-level guidelines, and prosody issued for the implementation of that strategy (Morgan, 2006 2425, 104). Those organisations with m whatever levels of hierarchy and control are considered as being tall, whilst those with only a a co uple of(prenominal) levels are describe as being flat (French et al, 2008 343). It is usually the case that the flatter structures exit greater decentralisation of decision-making and autonomy through the organisation whilst the taller structures focus on tighter, pen upr control mechanisms. The most effective balance for the organisation concerned must recognise the critical success factors set, the in operation(p) environment of the business and the existing corporate culture in relation to the sensed culture required (Mullins, 2010 508512 Stacey, 2011 94-105).Unity of command, span of control and sensemaking As well as addressing the requirements of vertical specialisation, functional, product and geographic structures also seek to practice two key tenets of classical management theory Unity of tender an employee should receive orders and direction from only one superior. Span of Control the number of people reporting to one superior must not be so large that it creates p roblems of communication and coordination. (Morgan, 2006 19) These aspects are shaped by the organisations sensemaking abilities i.e. the skills and competences of managers to make sense of what they do (Clegg et al, 2011 668). Sensemaking is a complex issue involving Social linguistic context considering the actual, implied or imagined views or presence of others Personal Identity a personal or group view of who they are (and their organisational identity) Retrospection this is important within organisations, as sometimes the most important decisions are the least macroscopic initially. Salient cues managers using past experiences and relating them to current scenarios in order to shape their actions and attitudes. Ongoing projects what structure or patterns exist within the organisation to allow managers the time and space to review and reflect upon an issue and change direction or tempo if necessary. Plausibility developing enough meaning to drive forward with a project. E nactment The ability to react and shape or amend an evolving situation. Drafting and Doing the ability to understand an emerging business scenario and thus isolate key themes in order to understand what is going on. (Clegg et al, 2011 22) apt(p) these complexities, many organisations are seeking to develop mixed structures which seek to obtain the benefits potentially provided by the functional, product and geographical forms of organisation whilst also recognising the grandness of these inter-personal aspects (Morgan, 2006 5052). Appendix 1 illustrates two models that aim to do so Divisional and hyaloplasm structures.Divisional structure A divisional structure seeks to overcome the problems associated with product or geographic diversity as each division can respond to the specific requirements of its product or market strategy (Johnson et al, 2011 434). Divisional managers have greater personal ownership of their strategies and their teams, allowing for the development of co mpetences focused on a particular product range, technology area or customer grouping (Henry, 2011 318319). A divisional structure also provides significant flexibility as organisations can add, close or merge divisions as circumstances change (Johnson et al, 2011 435). Whilst delivering a flexible and responsive organisation, a divisional structure does present a business with three key disadvantages Divisions can become too autonomous, operating as independent businesses only when introducing inefficiency by duplicating the functions and costs of the corporate centre. Personal and team identity is root in the division preferably than the wider business, captureing cooperation, knowledge sharing and fragmenting expertise. Divisions can end up pursing their own strategies regardless of the needs of the corporate centre which loses control and is only able to add minimal value to the operation (Cole Kelly 2011251252).Matrix structure A matrix organisation seeks to overlay a fla t structure based on products, projects, business activities or geographic area upon the more traditional vertical specialisation structure (Clegg et al 2011 544). This introduces dual or even multiple lines of authority and responsibility in an effort to deliver flexibility in relation to the forming of project teams, improve the engagement of resources and to encourage cross-functional cooperation (Linstead et al, 2011 216218). The vertical specialisation is seen as enduring, with the horizontal interaction often regarded as being temporary with the relationships dissolved as activities or projects are completed (Pettigrew Fenton, 2000 117143 Wall Minocha, 2010 319321). However, unless carefully controlled, matrix management complicates the unity of command and span of control aspects previously discussed (Morgan, 2006 19). Without clear boundaries, organisational conflict between functional and project managers can emerge, the autonomy of line managers can be erode and decisi on making becomes more inefficient leading to increased overheads (Clegg et al, 2011 545).Organisational culture Having recognised that organisations do not operate in a hoover and that it is important to create a structure that maximises the business return from the environment within which it operates, it is important to consider how culture (the shared ways of view and behaving) shapes success (Cole Kelly, 2011 590). Eight ethnic characteristics have been identified as being critical for organisational success A bias for action doing rather than discussing Staying close to the customer learning about their requirements and contact them in full self-direction and entrepreneurship being encouraged to think Productivity through people recognising and recognise best efforts Hands on executives keeping in touch and displaying corporate values Core competences focussed on what you do best comfort where possible lean organisations with the fewest possible layers Loose-tig ht properties focussed on hollow out values whilst allowing tolerance to explore and challenge. (Peters Waterman, 1982 89-318) In shaping an organisation in an attempt to maximise the potential return from these cultural characteristics, it is sensible to recognise the origins of corporate culture which are essentially The societal or national culture within which an organisation is physically situated. For large, multi-national organisations this introduces the challenge of understanding and incorporating different and cultural frameworks The vision, management style and personality of an organisations fall flat or dominant leader The type of business an organisation conducts and the character of its business environment. (Brown, 1998 42) tillage is therefore about an organisations history, stories, language and values rather than the application of theoretical models (Cunliffe, 2008 55). close in the organisational context becomes a critical success factor because It shapes the image that key stakeholders (including customers) have of the company and can become a crucial element of product or business differentiation within a market segment It influences performance as a positive culture (supporting the image and success of the business) that is essential to meeting corporate goals and the requirements of the wider business environment. A negative or counter-culture such as that which could emerge during a period of restructuring can work against organisational force It provides direction, as mission, vision and values statements identify where the business is going and how it plans to get there. A culture that creates a shared ownership of goals and which guides decision making can reduce the need for direct control because people know what is evaluate of them, how to behave and what they exit be rewarded for. It can attract and retain versatile and motivated staff. Strong cultures can have a powerful effect on the behaviour and commitment of em ployees. (Cunliffe, 2008 5859) In terms of cultural analysis, three levels of review can be considered Observable culture, often described as the way things are done, which are often the methods, rituals, ceremonies and symbols apply to impart an organisations shared values and approaches to new members (such as within installation programmes) Shared values, often manifested through statements aimed at delivering direction and cohesion and underpinned by identifiers such as the wearing of a uniform Common assumptions i.e. the reliable truths (often implicit and unspoken) that members of an organisation share as a result of their articulatio experiences. (French et al, 2008 380382) Attempts have been made to codify the core organisational cultures that are presented and the commonly build models are Role Culture focussed on rules, tasks, procedures and job descriptions office Culture power exercised by a central figure with few formal rules Person Culture the organisation ex ists for the benefit of its members Process Culture the following of highly regulated processes Tough-guy Culture driven by the need to take quick decisions, underpinned by risk-taking and a competitive ethos usage life-threatening/Play Hard Culture aiming to balance performance with work-place enjoyment Bet-Your-Company Culture a long-term outlook built upon significant (early) investment bureaucratic Culture a focus on consistency, control, efficiency and conformity coterie Culture focussed on commitment, involvement, teamwork and participation Task/Mission Culture goal oriented with rewards based on achieving mission and goals Adaptability Culture focussed on flexibility, innovation, risk-taking, empowerment and learning. (French et al, 2008 394395 Cunliffe, 2008 65, Cole Kelly, 2011 146-149) If strategies are to be developed that may change the structure of an organisation then it will also be necessary to potentially challenge and change the underpinning culture (Ha yes, 2010 438-447) considering purely sagacious processes such as planning and resource allocation will not be enough (Johnson et al, 2011 181). However, dangers do exist when conducting any analysis of organisational culture as it is too easy to over-simplify or even trivialise the issues involved it is not something that can be reduced to a few traits, easily linked to performance issues or readily managed (Johnson et al, 2011 182). Managers can shape culture through vision and value statements, supported by their own actions and expectations and this includes the organisational structure applied (Cunliffe, 2008 67). The power levers to be applied within the organisation and the cultural interaction that results should also be considered (see Appendix 3). However, perspectives on culture will influence the corporate view as to its relevance and importance to the sustainable success of the business and these views are essentially Integration the culture of the organisation is r elatively clear, unambiguous and straightforward Differentiation recognising the existence of sub-cultures within groups that are not easily identified or understood and which can inhibit change or development initiatives if not addressed Fragmentation no real cultural consensus can be identified around which any business strategy or organisation can be built (Brown 1998 296-297)Summary and conclusions Ultimately, organisational design is taken forward by corporate leaders and key decision makers whose choices are based upon their own predispositions (experiences, values and beliefs) (Cole and Kelly, 2011 256, Nadler Tushman, 1997 21). Therefore, although decisions are overtly based upon what is seen to be the best and most efficient construct for the business, in reality cultural factors prove to be just as important. Organisational culture is the basic assumption and beliefs shared by the members of an organisation, operating unconsciously and which help to define a companys vi ew of itself and its operating environment (Schein, 2010219-234). Culture may contribute to the capabilities and strategic direction/effectiveness of an organisation, but it can also stifle necessary development and exploitation if internal values and mores do not reflect external changes. Organisational structures and cultural influences can therefore both inform and constrain the strategic development and ultimately the competitiveness of a business In order to maintain competitive advantage and to avoid any strategic drift (where culture and organisational factors drive the business rather than the needs of customers and key stakeholders), both should be critically reviewed and their impact considered regularly by leaders and senior managers.References Adair, J. (2002). useful Strategic Leadership, Basingstoke Pan Macmillan Ltd. Brown, A. (1998). Organizational Culture, 2nd Edition, Harlow Pearson bringing up Ltd. Burnes, B. (2009). Managing Change, 5th Edition, Harlow Pearso n Education Ltd. Cole, G.A., Kelly, P. (2011). concern Theory and Practice, 7th Edition, Andover Cengage Learning EMEA. Clegg, S., Kornberger, M., Pitsis, T. (2011). Managing Organizations An Introduction to the Theory Practice, tertiary Edition, capital of the United Kingdom Sage Publications Ltd. Cunliffe, A.L. (2008). Organization Theory, London Sage Publications Ltd. Fineman, S., Gabriel, Y., Sims, D. (2010). Organizing Organizations, quaternate Edition, London Sage Publications Ltd. French, R., Rayner, C., Rees, G., Rumbles, S. (2008). Organizational Behaviour, Chichester John Wiley Sons Ltd. Hayes, J. (2010). The Theory and Practice of Change concern, third Edition, Basingstoke Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. Henry, A.E. (2011). Understanding Strategic Management, 2nd Edition, Oxford Oxford University kettle of fish. Johnson, G., Whittington, R., Scholes, K. (2011). Exploring Strategy, 9th Edition, Harlow Pearson Education Ltd. Kakabadse, A., Ludlow R., Vinnicombe, S. (1988). Working in Organisations, Aldershot Penguin. Linstead, S., Fulop, L., Lilley, S. (2009). Management Organization A Critical Text, 2nd Edition, Basingstoke Palgrave Macmillan. Morgan, G. (2006). Images of Organization, London Sage Publications Ltd, Mullins, L.J. (2010). Management Organisational Behaviour, 9th Edition, Harlow Pearson Education Ltd. Nadler, D.A., Tushman, M.L. (1997). Competing by Design The Power of Organizational Architecture, New York Oxford University Press Inc. Peters, T.J., Waterman, R.H. (1982). In Search of Excellence Lessons from Americas Best occur Companies, New York Harper Row Inc. Pettigrew, A.M., Fenton, E.M. (2000). The Innovating Organization, London Sage Publications Ltd. Schein, E.H. (2010). Organisational Culture and Leadership, 4th Edition, San Francisco John Wiley Sons Inc.Stacey, R.D. (2011). Strategic Management and Organisational Dynamics The challenge of complexity to ways of thinking about organisations, 6 th Edition, Harlow Pearson Educ ation Ltd Stewart, G.L., Manz, C.C., Sims, H.P. (1999). Team Work and Group Dynamics, New York John Wiley Sons Inc. Wall, S., Minocha, S., Rees, B. (2010). International Business, 3rd Edition, Harlow Pearson Education Ltd. concomitant 1MODELS AND ASPECTS OF ORGANISATIONAL